
Ei5i 

s 



ORGANIZA.TION OF THE HOUSE. 



SPEECH 



HON. lt%. BENNETT, OF MISSISSIPPI. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 22, 1855, 

On the election of Speaker and the organization of the House of Representa- 
tives. ^^ ^y-' 



Mr. BENNETT, of Mississippi, said: 
Mr. Clerk: Howsoever much I may be dis- 
inclined to participate in the discussion of the vari- 
ous questions which have been presented to the 
attention of the House in its present disorgan- 
ized condition, I feel that it is due to the country 
and the people whom I have the honor in part to 
represent, that these questions should be placed 
in their proper light before the country. 1 should 
like to know why it is that, up to this late day, 
the majority party in this House have refused to 
unite in the selection of a Speaker to preside over 
the deliberations of this body duriner the present 
Congress? I hazard nothing in the expression 
that, had the Democratic party of the Union pre- 
sented itself here with only a majority of one, 
in less than twelve hours after our first meeting, 
die House would have been organized, and tiie 
necessary legislation of the country would now 
have been in a rapid state of completion. But, 
sir, from day to day, and week to week, we have 
been presented with the most startling proposi- 
tions by the majority party in this House, and 
resolutions alike violative oif every principle of 
parliamentary procedure and of the organic law 
of the land. 

I demand to know from gentlemen, from whence 
do they derive the authority to compel anyrnem- j 
bcr upon this floor to yield the constitutional 
right of voting of his own free will for Speaker, 
to preside over our deliberations.' Docs not the 
Constitution vest in each member of this House 
ti e right of hi.s own free will to vote for a mem- 
b( 1 to preside over the deliberations of this body 
as Speaker.' By what authority do members I 
pr. pose to limit and to circumscribe that right so \ 
gi J rantied by the Constitution of the United 
Si tcs.' Mr. Clerk, I would ask whether tliis is 
thi feast to which the D< mo -racy of the coun- 
try have been invited by fi sijn rule.' is it con- 
te" ded that the House catmot be organized with- 
ou members adopting the most disorganizing 
rc.'olutions for that end.' 1 would like to know 
•wlat healings are presented in the great political 
Ptndora's bex of the two gentlemen who have 



been presented by the Opposition as candidates 
for the Speaker's chair.' What political bland- 
ishments have they, that are so captivating as to 
seduce the Democrats of this House from the 
support of the man of their choice.' It is true, 
whilst the one, with a manly frankness, avowed 
himself openly against us on the great question of 
the day, yet I maintain that the other is equally a.s 
assiduous in his attempts to undermine the found- 
ation upon which the Democratic party stands. 
We have been told that the Democratic party was 
dead, that this party had risen upon the rums of 
both the old political parties; let me ask, is it the 
Bauqiio's ghost of Democracy that disturbs their 
slumbers? 

What is the proposition which has been sixb- 
mitted by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. 
.Smith ?] It is, that this House shall proceed by 
common consent to appoint the committees upon 
which shall devolve the important duties usually 
devolving on this branch of Congress. The very 
resolution presuppo.ses an organization; or does 
he address the proposition to the Hall tliat shel- 
ters us from the inclemency of the weather ? 
Does he not know that the appellation of " House 
of Representatives" is never given to the Repre- 
sentatives of the people until they have organized 
in obedience to the organic law and the legisla- 
tion of the country ? There is but one mode in 
which this House can be organized, and that is 
by a steady adherence to the provisions of the 
Constitution and laws passed under it. Then- 
is but one opening through which we must en'.er, 
in order ^to effect so desirable an object. The 
duties appertaining, under the law, to the Speaker 
cannot be transferred to any other person. The 
Sergeant-at-Arms is required to take an oath and 
to give bond and security, which are to be ap- 
proved of by the Speaker; and I maintain that 
the Speaker, when properly selected, cannot 
rightfully transfer that right to anybody else; and 
I urge, sir, that the members elect to this House, 
in tlicir unorganized capacity, have no power to 
alter or modify a law passed i)y this body when 
organized. But these are not the questions which 



/4 



/ 



it is my purpose to examine. We have voted 
for many days, and without success, to elect a 
Speaker. 

It lias been said by the Opposition that the 
Democratic party stood in the way of the organ- 
ization of the House l)y the adoption, in their 
caucus, of principles that insulted, and were at 
war with, the professions of those who otherwise 
possibly, if not probably, would unite with us 
in electing: our Speaker. What are those prin- 
ciples ? We have declared to the country that 
we arc in favor of civil and religious liberty, and 
is that tlie barrier which is placed between the 
southern American party and the Democratic 
party of this Union? I appeal to that party 
themselves, and ask them whether such has not 
been the construction by their own members of 
the eighth section of the Philadelphia platform, 
that it was proscriptive ? Is it not true, that in 
obedience to their ritual, which declares that none 
shall be placed in offices of honor or profit in the 
gift of the people or by appointment, bu.t native- 
born Protestant citizens, and the obligations of 
the oaths which they are required to take, they are 
compelled to vote against a Catholic or a for- 
eigner? Galic and Celt are alike proscriljed from 
a participation in the offices of the country. You 
swear that you will not vote or give your influ- 
ence for any man for any office in the gift of the 
people, unless he be an American-born citizen: 
in favor of Americans ruling America; nor if he 
he a Roman Catiiolic ; that you will, in all po- 
litical matters, so far as its order is concerned, 
comply with the will of the majority, though it 
may conflict with your personal preference. Did 
not the American party in Louisiana take that 
view of the eighth article of the platform, that 
Catholics and foreigners were proscribed ? When 
that platform was presented, they ignored and 
repudiated the eighth section of it, because of the 
proscription of those who professed the creed of 
the Roman Catholic church — because of its reli- 
gious intolerance. And not only that, but, unless 
I am misinformed, tlie gentleman from Louisi- 
ana, a member in this House, who was elected 
by the American party in Louisiana which repu- 
diated that portion of the platform, is harmoni- 
ously acting with the American party here in the 
support of Mr. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, for 
Speaker. Then I say, if they can thus unite and 
harmoniously act with a member of their own 
order who has repudiated the principles of their 
platform, with what pro)5riety or consistency can 
it be pretended upon this floor, that we have pro- 
scribed them, and that they cannot unite with us 
in the selection of a Speaker? We have in our 
resolutions given the same construction to the 
eighth section of the platform that their own 
party have given to it, and the same that many 
Protestant religious periodicals have placed upon 
it; and, sir, I maintain, if that article in their 
platform does not mean to proscribe Catholics, 
It means nothing. 

I cannot as a Democrat give my support to Mr. 
Fuller, if there were no other objections than 
that he is a member of the American party, and 
indorses that platform, the provisions of which, 
in my opinion, binds every one indorsing it to 
submit to whatever acts of oppression the North 
may inflict upon them. I proceed to prove that 



proposition. Suppose that the Republican party 
North and the American party South had have 
engaged in belligerent warfare, and that the North 
were the victors, and«the besieged party had sur- 
rendered at discretion and v/ere imploringly .suing 
for mercy and peace at the hands of Abolition- 
ists, and that the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
GiDDiN'Gs,] with full authority, was directed to 
draw up the terms of submission, they could not, 
in my opinion, have offered terms more humil- 
iating to the South than is presented in the Phil- 
adelphia platform. For years, sir, this slavery 
agitation has been going on between the North 
and the South; every act of political intrigue has 
been adopted by the North to legislate upon this 
slavery rpiestion, covertly avoiding the direct 
proposition by which the stability of the LTnion 
would be endangered; the gentleman from Ohio, 
as I supposed, having this one single idea in his 
mind in drawing up the terms of peace that let 
the North, by legislation or otherwise, aggress, 
until their fanatical cravings were fully satisfied, 
that the American party would be bound to sub- 
mit, indorsing the provisions of the Philadelphia 
platform. 

Now, sir, what is the first proposition of sub- 
mission indorsed by the South in the Philadel- 
phia platform? It is, sir, that the Union of these 
States is the paramount political good. What is 
a paramount political good? It is a good above 
all others; a good aljove the preservation of the 
Constitution, above the sovereignty of the States, 
above the protection of the institutions of the 
South. This, sir, is the first step of submission 
voluntarily made l)y the American party indors- 
ing the Philadelphia platform. NVith this ad- 
mission, let the North aggress as they may by 
I State or national legislation, the members of' the 
j American party who stand upon the Philadelphia 
platform dare not raise their voice or arm iiT 
driving back such wanton aggressions, if, in so 
doing it would have the slightest tendency to en- 
danger that Union, to which they have pledged 
I themselves to be the paramount political good, 
I They not only submit to a platform that requires 
• them to agree that the Union is the paramount 
j political good; but, sir, they agree to oppose 
every attempt to weaken or subvert it. 

Suppose the sectional parly in the North re- 
fuse to admit a new State into this Union, (which 
presents itself with a Republican form of gov- 
ernment, that being the only constitutional test,) 
because the State asking for admission adopts a 
pro-slavery constitution; and suppose, sir, they 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and 
refuse, under the law passed in conformity to the 
Constitution, to render to the master his fugitivu 
slave, and the South declares resistance to such 
oppressive acts of aggression, the first opposers 
we should meet to our resistance would be the 
American party standing upon and indorsing the 
Philadelphia platform. And why? Because, sir, 
they have already agreed that the Union of these 
States is the paramount political good, and that 
they oppose every attempt to weaken and sub- 
vert it. This, sir, is no overstrained conclusion. 
Do we not witness the most formidable array, 
now in this House elected, pledged to do the 
very thing I have aUeged ? I for one should 
not feel proud, standing on tliis floor as the Rep- 



Tesentative of a people who would submit to 
such insulting acts of aggression; but I know 
the spirit and the temper of the constituency 
that I liave the honor to represent on this floor, 
and I fcrl a most inexpressible pride in repre- 
■senting a constituency who, knowing their rights, 
will dan' maintain tliem. 

But, sir, I am not through with the terms of 
peace submitted, to wiiich, in the Philadelphia 
platform, they pledge themselves. Tliey agree 
to uncomi-.-oniising antagonism to every principli^ 
of policy that endangers it, (the Union being 
with liii'm the paramount political good.) Tin' 
fanatics of the North assume to have the power 
to abolish the slave trade between the States, and 
abolisli slavery in tiie States, and the South 
should, as she will do, declare uncompromising 
resistance to such acts. Sir, by whom are we 
met.' It is the American party, if they continue 
firm to their platform, because they are pledged 
to uncompromising hostility to everjr principle of 

Eolicy that will endanger the Union, that having 
een by the American party admitted to be the 
paramount political good. It may be said that, 
ui order to sustain inv ]iosition, I am supposing 
extreme cases, and so the South has from time 
to time been lulled to repose upon this subject; 
but the rise and progress of Aljolitiogiism is fa- 
miliar to the youngest adult on the theater of ac- 
tion. How long back that they did not number 
•a " corporal's guard ?" It then danced most fan- 
tastically before the political jiarties in this coun- 
try, claiming, in the name of God and humanity, 
but slight aggression upon our rights. Mr. 
Calhoun, who then looked ahead with the un- 
ei-ring i-ye of projihecy, and foretold the alarm- 
ing demands it wovdd exact of thn South, was 
branded as an alarmist, and an ultra-agitator in 
the South. 

But the advocates of the Philadelphia platform 
not only yielded the riglit of resistance, as I have 
attempted in a desultory manner to present to this 
House, but they pledge themselves to advocate 
an eOjuitabie adjustment of all political differences 
•which threaten its integrity and perpetuity. The 
North claims that no other State sliall ever l;e 
admitted into this Union as a slave Stale. The 
American party at Philadelphia admits the Union 
to be the paramount poi.tical gfiod — opposition 
to every attempt to weaken or subvert it; uncom- 
promising hostility to every principle and jiolicy 
tliat will endanger it: the advocacy of an equit- 
able adjustment of all political diil'erences which 
tlireaten its integrity and pi>rpetuity. 

I ask candid men of all parties if they adhere 
in good faith lo the admissions in the Pliiladej- 
phia platform? Are ihey not bound to yield, as 
an equitable adjustment of all political ditFer- 
cnccs, that no other Slate shall ever come into this 
Union, except as a free Slate? Does it not seem, 
from the admissions and yieldings of the Ami'ri- 
can party, in the resohitions of their platform 
adopted at Philadelphia, binding themselves, let 
Congress, with Abolition rule, do as bigotry and 
fanatic'sm might seem ri'rhtand proper, that they 
would not resist if that resistance had the slight- 
est tendency lo disturb the peace and quiet of 
this Union, the Union being the paramount poli- 
tical good, according to their admission? But 
they still promise and agree to the suppression 



of all tendencies to political divisions, founded 
on geographical distinctions, or on the belief, 
that there is a real difference of interest and 
views between the various sections of the Union. 
Not content with having bound themselves 
against all resistance, they bind themselves to 
suppress tliat spirit of resentment and resistance 
that animates the heart of every freeman who 
loves equal rights and equal justice. 

Tiie southern hkui, wiien the Constitution has 
been disregarded, stripped of their property, and 
their honor insulted — are tliey to be met by this 
American party with arguments to suppress their 
feelings of insulted honor? But, sir, not content 
with the Surrender of every right of resistance, 
of rights violated, and honor insulted, they still 
I agree that, if the aggressions of the North shall 
, continue until wickedness and fanaticism shall 
i have glutted over its abominations, the slave in 
I chains would even dare to express sentiments 
I of resistance. This Philadelphia jilatform requires 
them to j^ield a habit of reverential obedience to 
'all laws, whether national, State, or municipal, 
until declared unconstitutional by the proper au- 
thority — and this is the boon for a violated Con- 
stitution, violated rights, and insulted honor: a 
mock trial by an Abolition judge, with a rever- 
ential obedience until ihat judge may be pleased- 
to investigate the cause. 

I Mr. CI'tIv, having attempted in a very brief 
; manner to give some of the reasons for not cast- 
, ing my vote for any one entertaining sentiments 
' so at war with the interests of the South, I must 
be permitted, before I conclude this branch of my 
j subject, to call the attention of the House to an- 
I other fact. There are seats of members of this 
i House contested. I know not the character. birth- 
I place, or religious opinions of the members bc- 
j tween whom this contest is going on. It may be 
I that one or the other of these parties is a Roman 
Catholic or foreigner, and I should be unwilling 
1 to see any man take his seat in that chair, bound 
' by pnn^ious obligations to vote ;igainst either. 
' What are the peculiar positions of the respcct- 
■ ive candidates presented before the country for 
[Speaker? The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
' [Mr. Bavks,] with great frankness and ciindor, iu 
! the short biographical sketch which he gave of 
: himself politically, stated, that at the time of the 
I agitation in the Congress of the United States in 
I reference to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, ho was 
opposed to that measure, and that he is now in 
favor of a restoration of the Missouri com|)ro- 
' misc, and opposed iv the extension of slav(^;-y, 
1 not only into Kansas, but into any of the Terri- 
1 tories of the United States. He tells us that lie is 
' the Representative upon this floor of the strongest 
anti-slavery party in the United States. I have 
' before me a pamphlet crmtaining the proceedings 
j of a convention of Abolitionists at Syracuse, New 
York, ami what do t!n^ say? 1 sup]iose, sir, 
tiiat tliis v/as a convention of conservative Abo- 
I litionists — not so ultra in feeling as the Abolition- 
I ists in the district from which the gentleman from 
, Massachusetts comi'S. Wiiat do tb.ey say? They 
' claim under the Constitution to have the power 
i to abolish slavery everywhere in the United Slates, 

I '• RcsoUed, That we, tlierelbrc, reject as useless all 

pclipfiics fur limitiiiir, localizing, confining, or .ini:'liorating 

I slavery — all plaus forprotcctUig die iioii-slaveholding Statea 



from the aggressions of slavery, and from tlie liability of 
becoming ovorspre:id and overborne by it— wliicli do not 
look directly to the immediate and miconditional prohibition 
and suppression of slavery in all parts of the country." 

They pledge themselves to proceed to the ex- 
ercise of that power: 

" Raoloed, That we consider it the duty of the Legis- 
latures of the several States to pass laws forbidding, under 
heavy penalties, the arrest of any person as a fugitive slave, 
or under the so called fugitive slave bill. 

" Resolved, That this convention recommend the organi- 
zation of efficient committees in every county or congres- 
sioiial district, whose duty it shall be to raise funds, by hold- 
inir public meetiims or otherwise, for defraying the legal 
expanses and liiiuidating the fines of such persons as may 
be prosecuted for violations of the fugitive slave bill." 

They pledge themselves to constitute commit- 
tees throughout the United States for the purpose 
of raising funds-to pay the fines that may be im- 
posed upon individuals for resisting the execution 
of the fugitive slave bill— a lavir passed in obedi- 
ence to the express letter of the Con.stitution; 
And yet, sir, here is a gentleman presented for 
the speaiversliip and voted for in this House by 
one hundred and seven members, who states that 
lie represents a people who entertain stronger 
anti-.slavery sentiments than any other people in 
the Union. His people have not yet spoken upon 
the question of slavery in convention; what their 
sentiments may be when they shall speak, I will 
not pause novv" to inquire. 

But, Mr. Clerk, what arc the sentiments of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Fuller.'] 
iic states that, if he had been in Congress at the 
time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
he would have opposed the bill, and opposed the ] 
repeal of the Missouri restriction; but that inas- 
much as Congress has acted upon that question, 
he is willing to acquiesce in that law, and will 
vote against any proposition that may be pre- 
sented for its repeal. But there are other Terri- 
tories remaining over which territorial laws must 
be extended, and the gentleman has not said with 
regard to Minnesota and tliose other Territories, 
whether in the event of a proposition being offered 
to extend territorial laws over them, he is willing 
that the principle einbraced in the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act shall be extended to them. That ques- 
tion has not been answered by him, and in the 
contest between him and Mr. Wright, he occu- 
pied the position of an anti-Nebraska man before 
the people. Mr. Wright was the supporter of 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and was defeated. 

Who docs the Democracy offer? We present 
you with a man who was the leader of the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill, and wlfcse eloquent voice was 
employed in carrying the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
through the Congress of the United States, and 
who is willing that the princijiles embraced in 
that bill shall" be extended to all the Territories 
belonging to the Government. 

I ask these gentlemen, as southerners, under 
all tlie circumstances that surround them, when 
the slavery question is presented in a most fearful 
aspect to the people of the South, and when the 
J'ree-Soil and Abolition sentiment is arrayed 
against us in this tLouse — I ask thern whether they 
w-i!l allow questions relating to the birth-place 
and religion of individuals to prevent them from 
uniting with us in the defense of southern rights? 
Mr. STANTON. I wish to know if the South 
desires that the restriction shall be removed fi-om 



the Territories of Minnesota and Oregon, so as 
to allow them to take their slaves into these Terri- 
tories? 

Mr. BENNETT. When I have finished my 
argument, I will answer any question that the 
gentleman may desire to put to me, but I prefer 
not to bo inteiTupted at this stage of my remarks. 
I will say, however, I am in favor of the people 
in all the Territories belonging to the United 
States, when forming their constitution, to say for 
themselves whether they will abolish or permit 
slavery. It has been said by the Opposition in 
this House that the Democratic party has ignored 
the slavery question, and in proof of that asser- 
tion i-eference has been made to an article m the 
Washington Union of the 5th of June, 1854. It 
is true that in that article the editor of the Union 
does take the ground that no national party can 
ever be formed in the United State."? upon the 
morality of the slavery question. 

Sir, has the South over implored the sympathy 
of the North upon the m'orality of slavery? 
Where have we demanded of tliem to unite with 
us upon its morality ? The South asks no sym- 
pathy of the North, either of the Democrats or 
Republicans, in regard to the morality of slavery. 
That is a question' for which the South alone is 
j responsibly. They are responsible at the bar of 
I their coumry, and at the bar of Heaven, in rela- 
i tion to the sinfulness of slavery, and it is a re- 
j sponsibility which they are ready to iKicet. We 
! admit with feelings of gratitude that the northern 
Democracy have sustained our constitutional 
rights to slavery, and that is all we ask. But, 
sir, the gentleman left off in his quotation from 
tlie editor of the Union just where I wish to com- 
mence speaking, in regard to the nationality of 
the Democratic party. He says, in that same ar- 
ticle, that we can form a national party upon the 
constitutional protection of slavery, and that the 
North and the South did harmoniously unite in 
the Baltimore platform upon the constitutional 
right of protection to slavery. 

"What do they say in the Baltimore platform > 
In the first article upon the subject of slavery 
they say " that the Congress of the United States 
has no power under tlie Constitution to legislate 
upon the subject of slavery in the States where it 
exists," &.C. The next section in the platform 
provid( s that the foregoing proposition shall be 
made to extend to all cases where the subject of 
slave agitation may take place. What does it 
! mean by the " foregoing proposition ?" Why, 
[that Congress, under the Constitution, has no 
I power to legislate upon the subject of slavery. 
I Then, sir, if the subject of slavery can be agitated 
in the Territories of the United States, the l^it^ 
imate conclusion is,that, underthe Constitution, 
Congress has no power to legislate itpon the sub- 
ject of slavery in tiie Territories. The next 
section in the Baltimore platform on the subject 
of slavery is, that they opposi^ the agitation of 
the slavery question both in and out of Congress; 
and yet gentlemen tell us we have ignored the 
question of slavery. Let me tell gentlemen to 
look to their own household before they make 
that charge against the Democracy. Li.t those 
who live^n glass houses be cautious how they 
cast the first stone. 

The great question agitated in the public mind. 



is the question of slavery extension , and the power 
of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery 
in the Territories. The Aboliti()n party claim 
everywhere the power of Congress to abolish 
daveryin the Territories; in favor of the restora- 
tion of the Missouri compromise, and opposed | 
to any State hereafter bemg admitted into this 
Union with a pro-slavery constitution. And i 
what is the position of the American party upon ] 
this most momentous question? They drclare, ' 
in their Philadelphia jdatform, a tender and sa- 
ored regard to those acts of statesmanship which 
are to be contradistinguished from the ordinary 
acts of the legislation of the country, because 
tiiey are in the nature of compacts and agreements, 
and arc so to be received as the settled policy of 
the country. Here is a din-ct recognition of the 
Missouri compromise of 1820, as being a com- 
pact and agreement between the North and the 
South, that ought to be looked to as the fixed 
and settled policy of the country; and standing 
upon that platform, they oceiqiy a position in 
antagonism to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. But 
they do not stop here; they say the American 
party, having risen upon the ruins of the old po- 
litical parties, are not responsible for the obnox- 
ious acts and violated pledges of either. What 
obnoxious acts and violated pledges do they 
mean but the action of the Congress of the United 
States upon the Kansas and Nebraska bill ? The 
Republican party in their conventions, both State 
and National, say "that the repeal of the Mis- 
souri comjiromise is a violation of the plighted 
faith vihich the South was under to the Nortli, 
which no plea can justify, and no lapse of time 
can palliate." 

Such is the language of the American jiarty 
North. Yet this American party South says, 
that that act — the repeal of the Missouri com- 
promise — was an obnoxious act and a violated 
pledge. In this they do intend, as I maintain, 
directly to condemn the repeal of the Missouri 
compromise, i ask the gentlemen standing on 
the Philadelphia platform, if the gentleman from 
Ohio should introduce in this House a propo- 
sition to restore the Missouri comproniisr, if 
they would not be estopped, according to their 
own admission , from using any influence in oppos- 
ing its restoration ? The northern members are 
elected by their constituents pledged to repeal the 
Kansas-Nebraska act, and to restore the Missouri 
restriction. The one, the Missouri compromise, 
you admit to be in tlie nature of compacts and 
agreements, and therefore to be received as the 
fixed policy of the nation, and Uie other to be 
obnoxious acts and violated pledges. 

It is well known that the whole Pccpublican 
and American party North claim that Congress 
has the power to legislate u])on the subject of 
slavery in the Territories, and are pledged to legis- 
late so as to prevent any State coming into the 
Union, save as a free State; and yet the Amer- 
ican party, standing on the Philadelphia plat- 
form, expressly pretermit any opinion, whether 
Congress has, or has not the power under the 
Constitution to do those very things; and in view 
of the inconstant position which the American 
party occupy, as I have shown, how can they at- 
tempt to charge us with the blame of preventing 
an organization of this House .' I appeal to the 



patriotism of the American party — I appeal to 
that feeling of Southern honor, and that sentiment 
which impels y.iu to the proti-ction of your own 
altars, and I ask, when you have placed around 
yourselv# a wall of fire,'when you have hemmed 
iuid hedged your.sclves in by adopting creeds in 
your platforms to which it is im])OSsiblc you can 
procure the assent of iIk; Democratic party, iri 
view of that awful crisis which the daily mani- 
festations around us prove that you are hasten- 
ing, if it would not be m;\gnanimous to forego 
your peculiar prejudices regarding the supposed 
aggressive policy of the Roman Catholic church, 
and the supposed inimical mercantile and polit- 
ical influence of foreigners, and come to the rescue 
of our common rights and common interests? 

I make this appeal in view of the fact which 
must be plain to every impartial observer of what 
has transpired in this House during the last two 
weeks, that the object in the origination of this 
new party was not to further the cause of Aboli- 
tionism, and divide and distract the South— and 
let it be recollected that, up to the time of the 
repeal of the Missouri compromise, ni)t one 
American council had been establis'ied in the 
South — audi ask if, as they maintain, they do 
not proscribe men for their l)irth-plaee or religion, 
but believe in civil and religious libi'rty, is this 
not the most appropriate occasion to say so ? And 
as regards the question of slavery, do we not 
present them with a platform under which it can 
never be claimed that, by any provision of' the 
Constitution, the right to hold slaves was either 
created or abolished? Our doctrine is, that the 
Constitution recognized slavery as it existed at 
the time; that it is under and by virtue of the 
provisions of that instrument that slavery is now 
practiced and shielded; and that the southern 
man, if his slave runs away, and is found in a 
free State, has as much ri'glit and authority to 
reclaim him as the northern man has to the rec- 
lamation (if his stray or stolen horse. Slavery- 
exists in the States by sufferance of the Consti- 
tution, not merely by local law; the people, when 
they meet in convention, ma}-, in fonning their 
organic laws, either admit or pr&iiibit it. 

li', then, on the acquisition of new territory by 
the Union, slavery is found io exist, or is after- 
wards taken there, the moment the Constitution 
is extended over the Territory the slave-owner is 
entitled to protection in the proprietorship of his 
slave, and is entitled to that protection until the 
people, in obedience to the Constitution, meet in 
convention preparatory to admission as a State 
into the Union, and in that conviction prohibit 
slavery. Congress, under the Constitution, has 
no power to legislate upon the subject except for 
the ]u-otection of existing rights. It can neither 
create nor abolish slavery, nor can v. contV'r that 
power on tlie territi>rial Legislatures, since it can- 
not delegate authority which it does not possess. 
Congress holds and ex<'rcises rights over the Ter- 
ritories as the guardian of all the States, each 
having the same common interest. Any action, 
therefore, by any of the Slates having a direct 
tendency to populate a Territory for the express 
purpose of forming the political complexion of 
the'people of iheT.rriiory, in order (o strengthen 
the Abolition States, if no'l a violation of the spirt 
of the Constitution, is a fr;'.ud on the other States. 



6 



I understand that gentlemen are opposed to 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, because by that act 
aliens are entitled to exercise the right of suf- 
frage. 1 desire to know from the gentleman from 
Kentucky and the gentleman from Ala^pma, who 
have taken that position, whether they intend to 
«ay that the Congress of the United States has 
the power to prescribe who shall be entitled to 
exercise the right of suffrage ? I maintain thsit 
it is a powerreservod to the States; that it is 
a supreme and absolute power reserved to the 
States. That question was debated between the 
Federal and the Republican parties at the forma- 
tion of the Constitution. A proposition wasmade 
in the Convention to strike out all after the words, 
'•' qualification of electors," that some other clause 
might be inserted, by which the right of suffrage 
should be limited to freeholders alone. That 
proposition was voted down. The reason ad- 
vanced by the Federal party in support of the 
motion was this: that if the Constitution stood 
as it now stands, the National Legislature would 
be made subservient to the will of the State Le- j 
gislatures. On the opposite side of the House , 
it was contended, that the State Legislatures were ! 
the best judges of the temper and disposition of 
those upon whom they should confer the right 
of suffrage. 

Then, if the gentleman means to say that the i 
States cannot confer that power on an alien until 
he has been naturalized by complying Avith the 
uniform naturalization laws, which Congress has 
power to pass, he would change the position of the 
Constitution, and instead of the National Legis- 
lature being made subservient to the will of the 
State Legislatures, the State Legislatures would 
be made "subservient to the will of the Congress 
of the United States. I maintain that this is a 
limited Government, and that it can exercise no 
powers except those which have been expressly 
delegated bv the States and the people, unless 
some other assumed power be necessary to carry 
into effect the expressly delegated power. And, 
sir, whenever an assumed power has been invoked j 
as necessary to carry into effect an expressly del- j 
egated power, that assumed power must always 
be exercised in subordination to the rights which 
are reserved to the States. | 

Then, with that construction of the phraseology j 
of the Constitution, and the debates in the forma- 1 
tion of the Federal compact, I ask by what au- 
thority it is said in this House that the States 
have no power to confer the right of suffrage on 
aliens? I would ask gentlemen of the Opposi- 
tion, where foreigners are allowed the right of 
suffrage within a few months after their arrival in 
the country, whether they obtain that privilege 
under the uniform naturalization laws? Some 
States have permitted, and do now permit, free 
negroes to exercise the right of suffrage, and 
when did the Congress of the United States take 
from the free negro his property qualification? 
By what authority have the States conferred the 
right of suffrage on those people, except by the 
authority of the reserved rights which the States 
enjoy under the Constitution, and in accordance 
with the construction of the Constitution which 
I have given ? 

I have very briefly noticed some of the argu- 
ments of the Opposition. I regret that it has been 



made necessary for me in this House to notice 
arguments of such a character — arguments lietter 
suited to the hustings than to legislative bodies. 

I now beg, Mr. Clerk, for a very short time, Do 
call the attention of the House to some remarks 
that fell from the gentleman from Ohio the other 
day, upon the subject of slavery and slave hold- 
ers. And, sir, I must begin by sayins: that, in 
reply to the argument addressed to this House by 
those who deny the constitutional right of my 
constituents to hold slave property, I have th« 
same answer to make that I would make to the 
highwaymen in your streets who should attempt 
bv force to rifle from me my goods: and, sir, has? 
it'come to this, in the halls of the National Legis- 
lature, among State Representatives, all bound 
by the same compact, and protected by the sama 
j stars and stripes, that language should go forth 
I to the country so treasonable to the institutions 
of the South, as that uttered by the gentleman 
from Ohio, [Mr. Giddixgs,] who said that he 
would advise slaves to resist the lawful correction 
of their owners — advise slaves to do that, con- 
travening the express laws of the land, and in 
gross violation of the precepts of Holy Writ, 
which commands servants to obey their ma.sters ! 
Slavery has existed from the earliest history 
of man. It was brought into the colonies by 
European and Yankee merchants. As early as 
1720, African slaves were brought over to Amer- 
ica, and, though many of the southern colonies 
protested against the introduction of slavery, 
their remonstrances were disregarded. When 
slave labor ceased to be useful and valuable to 
the northern States, they sold to the citizens of 
the South, and for years slaves were bought and 
sold, and the North reaped the profits. It is not 
contended that slavery is established by positiv* 
lav/; but at the time of the adoption of the Fed- 
eral Constitution the African race was held in 
bondage in this country: in some of the States 
it is still so held; and, although we recognize no 
difference in the political rights and privileges of 
the various sections of this Union, we maintain 
that all are alike entitled to protection in the en- 
joyment of proprietary riglits which were legally 
theirs before the declaration of independence, 
and which no provision in the Constitution abro- 
gated or modified. We would scorn, sir, as 
southern people, to present ourselves as suppli- 
ants at the feet of Abolitionists, and claiming 
mercy at their hands; but, sir, we come as equals 
in this Union— equal in rights and privileges — 
and claiming nothing more, and determined to 
accept nothing less than that protection which 
the Constitution accords to us. I come in the 
name of my people, not with threats, but with 
warnin£;s. If you love the Union, by the high 
obligation which that sentiment imposes on you, 
wi! warn j-ou to preserve it. You can if you 
will; but if, in defiance of our warnings, and in 
violation of both law and justice, you are still 
resolved to encroach upon our rights, see that 
you are not overwhelmed in its mighty ruins. 

Sir, it was in 1851 that this aggressive spirit on 
the part of the North caused the people in my 
State to meet in convention; and in that conveik- 
I tion the Union party of the State declared that 
there were aggressions by the N<n-th that would 
amount to intolerable oppression, and would event- 



ually sever the ties that bind us togother, and dis- uj.?^rly all the free States; and has filled the icp 
solve the Union; and that, contemplating; the poi^iresentative branch of Cong-n'ss with a niMJority 



sible repeal of the fugitive slave bill, a modificatioii 
<»f the same, or refusal to execute its provisions, 
the abolition of shnery in the District of Colum- 
l)ia, or the refusal to admit a new State into tin; 
Union because of its having a pro-slavery consti- 
tution — in the efforts to meet these evils the union 
of the States must be considered the secondary 
j)olitical good. Upon this platform, which I 
thought, in 1851, yielded up everything that could 
bo fairly demanded. I hope now to be permitted 
to stand ; and I warn the Republican party in this 
House, that they come here elected to do now the 
▼ery things which the Union party, in 1851, said 
e.ould not be done except at the price of the sever- 
ance of the Union. The soutliern people, on the 
contrary, are a law-abiding people; they love, as 
frntriots should, this Union; tiiey come not to 
dissolve, but to more firmly unite — not to weaken, 
but to strengthen. 

Since I have had the honor to take my seat 
upon this floor, sir, I have attempted to scan very 
»»lmly the various discordant elements that stand 
in the way of the organization of the House, and, 
in view of all I see around mc, I am almost ready 
to exclaim. Surely we have fallen upon evil 
times. This same spirit of Abolitionism, which 
but a few years ago merely claimed the right of 
petition, without even holding the balance of 
power, by fusion with one of the old political 
parties, has now, with here and there an excep- 
tion, taken absolute possession of the free State 
Legislatures, controlling not only the executive 
and legislative, but the judicial departments of 



openly proclaiming that slavery must be annihil- 
ated and abolished everywhere. "When I see this 
smothered spirit in the House, with a determined 
will to make war upon the South, I am almost 
ready to exclaim, in the langun.ge of Ferdinand, 
"All hell is empty; the devil's ai-e all here." 

In view of the v/hole subject of this spirit of 
Abolition aggression upon the rights of the South , 
and the bold and unblushing assumptions now 
claimed in the Halls of this House, surely every 
patriot and lover of this Union may feel a deep 
solicitude for tlu- pending issues. 

I worn you agam, in the name of our common 
country, and the compact that binds us together, 
to stay the hand of your threatening. For one, 
I am prepared to say, the South will never sub- 
mit to the consumm.ation of those acts which in 
your election you are bound to carry out. You 
have schooled our feelings to look upon your 
thrcatcnings with disregard and contempt; we 
pruy God your aggressions may ncvi^r force upon 
us that conflict,; but, sir, if that conflict nuist 
come, I for one say, let it comm(;nce in this Hall; 
and I hope, sir, that, if it be necessary to main- 
tain our constitutional rights, it may commenc« 
on this floor, and that the first drop of human 
gore shed in defense of violated rights and in- 
sulted honor may crimson the walls of this Cap- 
itol, and be consecrated to the maintenance of 
equal rights and equal justice. The Democracy 
have planted themselves ujjon the principles of 
civil and religious liberty, and upon them they 
stand united and harmonious. 



Primed at the Cungressional Globe Oflicc. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 897 846 8 



^^ 



v\ 



BBA^^ 



OF CO 



^iGB£SS 



OOA 



A 897 8A6 



